As a Parent of Four Daughters, I Need to Know These Things
(Hat tip: Laura McKenna)
The text is a little unfair to Cinderella, whom frankly I think gets a bad rap. (Until her stepmother cruelly destroys her ambition to attend the ball and she completely breaks down, Cinderella's a pretty realistic and tough broad, all things considered.) And, strictly speaking, Belle isn't a princess. Still, everything else is, unfortunately, pretty much dead-on as regards Snow White, Aurora, Jasmine, and Ariel (Ariel particularly so). Note that Pocahontas and Mulan aren't featured, presumably because they break the Disney Princess mold. And yes, I am thinking about this stuff too much.
8 comments:
Or Elastigirl or Jesse. There is a definite shift mid-90s, and it is noticeable in this image that they don't have any examples from after 1994.
Through hard work, resourcefulness, and magical-girl-power-enabled subterfuge, Cinderella was able to elevate herself to a life of comfort and ease by ensnaring a rich, good-looking prince, despite the fact that she was, by prevailing mores, clearly beneath his station.
By taking initiative and striking a deal with a shady pawnbroker, Ariel was able to get a new set of wheels, escape the sway of her father's oppressive, controlling undersea patriarchy, and elevate herself to a life of comfort, ease, and exciting human technologies by ensnaring a rich, good-looking prince, despite the fact that she was, by prevailing mores, a fish.
Dan,
Well, if you start throwing the Pixar characters in there, things get even more confusing. Consider Barbie in Toy Story 3, and how she totally dominates Ken...
Anonymous,
I can totally go with with your description of Cinderella, but you're papering over the biggest issue in the case of Ariel: her "new set of wheels" was her own disfigurement. Kind of creepy, that. (I had a feminist friend at BYU back in the early 90s who would go on and on about how Ariel's "empowerment" really begins with her choosing to spread her "legs" apart...)
Looks like some academic has taken one too many hits from the peace pipe.
Cinderella and Snow White didn't ONLY have beauty -- they were also very kind! And good house keepers...
As far as Ariel is concerned, Ariel and the prince actually hit it off before Ariel is disfigured. The sea-witch is the one who suggests that "the only way to get what you want is to become human yourself," right? Of course, Ariel is the one who takes a gulp and takes a breath and goes ahead and signs the scroll, so the choice is still hers in the end.
On the other hand, her prince doesn't completely fall for her until after her voice and fins return -- and Ariel is pretty gutsy attacking Ursula in order to save her prince and father in the end, so I think the explanation given in the graphic is a little unfair to her: if anything, that explanation does more toward objectifying and glorifying the role of her sexuality/disfiguring than the movie does.
...I'm thinking about this way too much, methinks.
On the Ariel issue, first of all, only some feminists would frame Ariel's self-transformation as "disfiguration"--the same ones that have axes to grind with cosmetic surgery, makeup, fashion, weight control efforts, etc. Plenty of feminists and feminist theorists would take the exact opposite approach.
Second, why even consider Ariel's sex to be the issue? She's a fish, before she's a girl. But all her life she's felt out-of-place as a fish--a special affinity for the human world. Given that, feminist theory is a more awkward fit than GLBT theory. From that perspective, she's defying the narrow bounds of the fish and human worlds by crossing over, by asserting that, fluke notwithstanding, she's a GIRL.
But RAF,
If I recall correctly, didn't you already start a "future spouse candidate" list for your daughters about two years ago? I don't remember any... princes being on it?
Post a Comment